Let the games begin

[Ben Kenobi]

Now what about posting the results from EVERY SINGLE RIDING in Quebec.

Obviously the tories there have no appeal for Quebeckers. Maybe they should try someone who's a more rebust conservative?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Pretty silly.

Two conservative MPs who are backbenchers influencing votes across the country, moreso than the individual candidates in their respective ridings.

It's all media hype, the media likes demonising Gallant and White to deflect from the real issues.

Abortion and the Supreme Court are real issues to many Canadians, many Canadians who vehemently disagree with Gallant and White on those issues.

The problem was not having the convictions, more than a few Liberals share a pro-Life viewpoint, or at least are not for unrestricted Choice. The problem was allowing themselves and their personal convictions to take centre stage during a national campaign AS IF they were the party.

To be fair, the media share in the blame for how it was reported. However, any candidate who wants to sink the chances of Tories in marginal ridings (like mine) need only begin answering every question put to them by some reporter/hack from the Toronto Star with complete candor.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The NDP wants electoral reform a lot more than the BQ does...

I haven't really factored the NDP in, TBH, since they don't have enough votes to be decisive.

[notyoueither]

btw, it's sort of ironic that PR would cut the knot, as it were. The Tories would be assured of seats in Quebec since even now they poll ~10% there. That should come out to 7 seats or so.

PR would make the Tories move further towards the centre or result in fewer Tory governments as breaks on the Liberals/left. Still, I trust the Canadian people to do the right thing in the end, and that includes mixing up the governments a little bit to make sure no one gets too comfy in the big chair, no matter what system we have.

Incidently, that is why I do not share the pessimism of some about the Tories in Quebec, even though I know very little about the place. I think we will muddle through as we always have.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And I think that Harper has painted himself into a corner on this. Martin threw down the gauntlet by writing a speech designed to be aggravating to the right and, to a lesser extent, to the BQ (though to be fair it would be difficult to write a speech that they'd like). The proper response (i.e. what will play best with their target audiences) for each the parties is as follows:

1) Liberals: vote for it and proclaim it a piece of genius
2) NDP: vote for it after whining
3) Bloc: vote against it and say that Quebec got the short end of the stick yadda yadda yadda
4) Conservatives: Explain what a piece of trash the speech is. Then abstain from voting and explain to the Canadian people that they'd vote against it, but they don't want to force another election before they have a chance to attempt compromise on more serious issues. Engineer something like a walkout when Martin begins to speak. Nice piece of political theatre, lets people know they're serious, doesn't make them seem obstructionist, keeps them in the public eye.

That's a damn good point.

But now the game's afoot. Let's see how it turns out. The game of chicken between Harper and Duceppe could be worth the price of admission.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's all media hype, the media likes demonising Gallant and White to deflect from the real issues.

How is it demonising to show somebody for what they are?

[notyoueither]

Ben's not on ATM, but I would say that painting the picture that Gallant's views spoke for the party was demonising.

If it weren't, why have her splashed across the national press for a week running? They weren't talking about one Ontario candidate, they were talking about the entire party based on her statements, which the party does not back.

Otherwise, why would people in Quebec care? Surely the local Tory was not the same breed of troglodyte.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And I think that Harper has painted himself into a corner on this.

That's what I thought at first, but I predict that Harper will announce his party will have a "free" vote on the throne speech. And then, surprise, surprise, there will be just enough Conservative votes in favour of it.

This strategy lets the Conservatives say:
1) We wanted a tax cut for the poor, but the Liberals said no;
2) The Conservative party lets its MPs decide how to vote;
3) When the Libs eventually lose a no confidence vote, the Conservatives can claim they tried to make the minority government work.

Of course, this assumes the Conservative are politically smart, which they have yet to prove.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem was allowing themselves and their personal convictions to take centre stage during a national campaign AS IF they were the party.

To be fair, the media share in the blame for how it was reported. However, any candidate who wants to sink the chances of Tories in marginal ridings (like mine) need only begin answering every question put to them by some reporter/hack from the Toronto Star with complete candor.

Why should the opinions of a candidate not in your riding take precedence over a candidate in your riding?

You cannot vote for Cheryl Gallant, or for Randy White. Ergo, you cannot affect whether or not they come into parliament.

However, you can influence parliament through your candidate.

You say Cheryl Gallant spoke for the party and not for herself. Are you reporting what she said, or how the media represents what she said?

The conservative party is supposed to allow people of different opinions on issues to have a voice within the party. Therefore, the opinion of one MP cannot dictate the stance of the party.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
That's what I thought at first, but I predict that Harper will announce his party will have a "free" vote on the throne speech. And then, surprise, surprise, there will be just enough Conservative votes in favour of it.

This strategy lets the Conservatives say:
1) We wanted a tax cut for the poor, but the Liberals said no;
2) The Conservative party lets its MPs decide how to vote;
3) When the Libs eventually lose a no confidence vote, the Conservatives can claim they tried to make the minority government work.

Of course, this assumes the Conservative are politically smart, which they have yet to prove.

Hehe. This is sort of what I was thinking. Can always fall back on the free vote thingy.

Only fly in that ointment I can see is that no confidence motion ever has been a free vote. However, perhaps it would be better if they were too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, this assumes the Conservative are politically smart, which they have yet to prove.

We shall see how much political acumen they have.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
A circus is having your government potentially grind to a halt because one party refuses to cooperate with another.

Potentially? That happens on a routine basis in the US, particularly when one party controls the White House and another party controls either the senate or the house.

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
A circus is having communist style party politics where individual members aren't even given a free vote.

Ah, the typical American response: You're just a bunch of commies.

And you know as well as I do that American politicians toe the party line when it matters.

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
American politics is tame, it only gets slightly crazy at the Executive branch. In fact most of the time its pretty boring. Don't ever kid yourself into believing Canadian politics isn't absolutely insane.

So you think Canadian politics is absolutely insane?

Take another look.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should the opinions of a candidate not in your riding take precedence over a candidate in your riding?

You cannot vote for Cheryl Gallant, or for Randy White. Ergo, you cannot affect whether or not they come into parliament.

However, you can influence parliament through your candidate.

You say Cheryl Gallant spoke for the party and not for herself. Are you reporting what she said, or how the media represents what she said?

The conservative party is supposed to allow people of different opinions on issues to have a voice within the party. Therefore, the opinion of one MP cannot have bearing on the stance of the party.

Most of us can't vote for Harper, Layton, Martin, or Duceppe either, Ben.

Wake up! We vote for parties, leaders, and other icons as much or more than we vote for individual candidates.

You are right that the way the media played it is more important than what she said. All I would say is that after the first national wave she created, she should have had the brains to STFU since it was obvious that she was having an effect far away from her own riding.

IOW, she was effecting the vote in every riding across the land. You can't help but do that when you are front page for a week during a 28 day campaign.

Cut to the chase. Tories have got to learn how to STFU about personal crusades and win elections on a party platform.

[notyoueither]

And maybe membership has to be more careful about who gets nominated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Most of us can't vote for Harper, Layton, Martin, or Duceppe either, Ben.

Wake up! We vote for parties, leaders, and other icons as much or more than we vote for individual candidates.

Okay. So how does the opinion of one candidate in one riding in Ontario affect the position of the Leader?

If we vote for Leaders and parties only, then Cheryl Gallant cannot represent the party.

All I would say is that after the first national wave she created, she should have had the brains to STFU since it was obvious that she was having an effect far away from her own riding.

I could care less. I vote for my MP, and not for Cheryl Gallant. I vote for the Conservative party, and their leader Stephen Harper.

Either way, her opinion does not matter outside of her own riding.

IOW, she was effecting the vote in every riding across the land. You can't help but do that when you are front page for a week during a 28 day campaign.

The media blew this out of proportion to deflect people from the real issues of the campaign, such as the democratic deficit under Martin.

Sure, you can say Cheryl Gallant killed her party, but the only reason her face got on the national media is because they made it an issue, and not her.

Cut to the chase. Tories have got to learn how to STFU about personal crusades and win elections on a party platform.

I vote for my MP. I want to know where he stands on the issues. I know where the party stands. But the biggest influence I can have on parliament is to vote for the candidate that best represents my interests.

If that candidate happens to be a conservative, then I will vote for the conservative party. If that candidate happens to be a liberal, then I vote for the Liberal party. Any other method diminishes my influence drastically.